Planning commission reviews Sheelander Woods concept plan, flags density and wetlands constraints

Forest Lake City planning staff presented the Sheelander Woods concept plan from Twin Cities Land Development and asked the planning commission for direction on density and layout rather than a formal approval.

Stephen, the city’s planner, told commissioners the applicant proposes 25 single‑family lots on roughly 21 net acres west of Harrow Avenue and south of the Chestnut Creek/Havenwood area. "This is really the early planning conversation," Stephen said, stressing the meeting’s purpose is to identify issues the developer should address before a preliminary plat submittal.

Staff walked commissioners through preliminary density calculations: with 25 lots on about 21 acres the raw density is about 1.19 units per acre; after applying Metropolitan Council guidance to exclude wetlands, buffers and stormwater ponds staff’s preliminary developable area falls to roughly 11.5 acres and the calculated density rises to about 2.1 units per acre. Stephen noted an alternative that preserves a 3.3‑acre outlot along Harrow Avenue could reduce the developable acreage to about 8.15 acres and produce roughly 3.07 units per acre—near the low end of the city’s 3–6 units/acre comprehensive‑plan guidance.

Commissioners probed several consequences of those calculations. Commissioner Young asked staff to provide a citywide inventory of existing apartment dwelling units, arguing the city’s total multi‑family supply affects how strictly the commission should press to meet site‑level density guidance: "I am becoming more and more frustrated with us saying we have to meet density on this property and that property without saying, 'look, we have contributed a significant number of dwelling units,'" he said. Several commissioners expressed concern that smaller lots or isolated cul‑de‑sacs could create long emergency‑service routes and reduce livability.

Watershed and engineering comments were also central to the exchange. Staff and commissioners noted that wetland delineations may expand in some areas and that required road, right‑of‑way and pond access easements would reduce developable acreage further and could change the final lot count. Stephen said the watershed has flagged lots 8, 9, 23 and 24 as potentially impaired by wetlands.

Developer Ben Schmidt acknowledged the difficulty of reaching three units per acre with single‑family lots under current rules but said recent Metropolitan Council guidance on excluded acreage made the target approachable in some cases. He told the commission his team’s loose calculations could reach roughly 3.01 units per acre after allowed exclusions, but he said he preferred to keep 65‑foot lots rather than introduce townhouses or narrow 50‑foot lots: "I don't want to put town houses here. I don't think they make sense," Schmidt said, adding that many of the proposed lots will be marketable to buyers who value wetland views.

Staff asked the commission two specific questions: (1) should the next submittal include a more detailed, documented density analysis showing exactly what acreage is counted or excluded (wetlands, buffers, ponds, easements, outlots, etc.), and (2) if the final density still appears below the comprehensive‑plan guidance, should the applicant be asked to explore options to increase density (smaller lots, attached housing, or specific PUD flexibilities)? Commissioners generally supported requiring a clear acreage accounting on the next submittal and discussing potential design options with the applicant; no formal development approvals or zoning changes were made at the meeting.

Staff said it will continue to work with the applicant to document excluded acreage, consider west‑side park or cash‑in‑lieu options, and return with a preliminary plat showing how the site connects to adjacent Havenwood/Chestnut Creek phases. Stephen told the commission the project concept will go to the city council on the 22nd and that affected items (including a related Clear Lake multifamily plan) were scheduled for further review at the July 8 meeting.

What happens next: staff will request a more detailed density analysis from the developer, investigate wetlands and right‑of‑way/exclusion calculations with the watershed and engineering, and bring a revised preliminary submittal back to the commission. The commission did not take a final vote on the concept plan tonight.